LENGTH CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION CONTRADICT THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT - MMXIIIByThorntone E. ‘Butch’ MurrayHouston, Texas, USA June 4, 2013

CONTENTION:This contention is in strict adherence to and based exclusively on principles presented in the 1905 Theory of Special Relativity (SR) by Albert Einstein. The following mathematical analysis of an ordinary, unremarkable circumstance proves that time dilation and length contraction as presented in SR contradict a fundamental assumption of SR that the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers.

FOR THESE PURPOSES:There are two identical circular clocks each with a pointer and there are three identical light clocks each with a light pulse. A light clock is a particular type of light path. The length of a measuring rod, the length of a light clock and the length of a light path are analogous. When light clocks are judged to have the same length, the light pulses in those light clocks are judged to have the same round trip distance. When the length of a light clock is judged contracted by a factor, the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is judged contracted by that same factor. The amount of time for the pointer in a circular clock to complete one revolution is the amount of time for light pulses in light clocks in the same frame to complete one round trip. Frame K and frame K’ are inertial frames. Frame K’ is in motion relative to frame K.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LENGTH CONTRACTION AS PRESENTED IN SR:The proper length of a measuring rod and so the proper length of a light clock is its length judged from within the frame it occupies. The three light clocks are the same proper length. The round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock of proper length is d. Judged from frame K the length of a measuring rod and so the length of a light clock oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K’ is its proper length. Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock in frame K and the round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K’ are both d. Judged from frame K the length of a measuring rod and so the length of a light clock oriented in the direction of motion in frame K’ is its proper length contracted by the length contraction factor sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). The round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock judged as its proper length contracted by the length contraction factor sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock oriented in the direction of motion in frame K’ is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIME DILATION AS PRESENTED IN SR:Judged from frame K when K’ is in motion relative to frame K time in K’ advances at a slower rate than time in frame K. Judged from frame K time in frame K advances at a faster rate than time in K’. Judged from frame K time in frame K advances at a faster rate than time in K’ by the factor 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Then judged from frame K the pointer in the circular clock in K advances at a faster rate than the pointer in the identical circular clock in frame K’ by the factor 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Judged from K the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in K’ to complete one revolution is the amount of time for the pointer in the identical circular clock in frame K to complete 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) revolutions. Judged from frame K t is the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in frame K to complete one revolution. Then judged from K the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in frame K’ to complete one revolution is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

THE LIGHT CLOCK IN FRAME K:One of the previously described circular clocks and one of the light clocks are in frame K. Judged from K that light clock is its proper length. Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock in frame K is d. Judged from K the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes one revolution in amount of time t. The amount of time for the pointer in a circular clock to complete one revolution is the amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in light clocks in the same frame. Then, judged from K the light pulse in the light clock in frame K completes one round trip in that light clock in amount of time t.

For these purposes, v is the speed of the light pulse, the speed of light c. The amount of time for the light pulse to complete the round trip is t. The round trip distance for the light pulse is d. All is judged from frame K. The speed formula v=d/t Substitute c for v c=d/tFor these purposes, judged from frame K the expression (d/t) represents the speed of the light pulse thus the speed of light in the light clock in frame K.

BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K’:The remaining circular clock and two light clocks are in frame K’. The amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in the light clocks in frame K’ is the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in frame K’ to complete one revolution. Judged from K the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in frame K’ to complete one revolution is the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in K to complete 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) revolutions. Judged from K the amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in the light clocks in frame K’ is the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in K to complete 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) revolutions. Judged from K the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in K to complete 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) revolutions is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Therefore, judged from K the amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in the light clocks in frame K’ is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

THE LIGHT CLOCK PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF MOTION IN K’:One of the light clocks in frame K’ is oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion. Judged from frame K the length of the light clock that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K’ is its proper length. Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is d. Judged from frame K the amount of time for the light pulse in each light clock in K’ complete one round trip is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Judged from K the round trip distance for the light pulse in the light clock in frame K’ that is oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion is d.

For these purposes, v is the speed of the light pulse, the speed of light c. The amount of time for the light pulse to complete the round trip is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). The round trip distance for the light pulse is d. All is judged from frame K. The speed formula v=d/t Substitute c for v c=d/t Substitute t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) for t c=d/t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) Simplify c=(d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))For these purposes, judged from frame K the expression (d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) represents the speed of the light pulse thus the speed of light in the light clock that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K’.

BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K’: (Intentionally repeated)Previously established under this heading, judged from frame K the amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in the light clocks in frame K’ is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

THE LIGHT CLOCK IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION IN K’:The remaining light clock in frame K’ is oriented in the direction of motion. Judged from frame K the length of the light clock that is in the direction of motion in frame K’ is its proper length contracted by the length contraction factor sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Judged from frame K the amount of time for the light pulse in each light clock in K’ to complete one round trip is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Judged from K the round trip distance for the light pulse in the light clock in frame K’ that is oriented in the direction of motion is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

For these purposes, v is the speed of the light pulse, the speed of light c. The amount of time for the light pulse to complete the round trip is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). The round trip distance for the light pulse is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). All is judged from frame K. The speed formula v=d/t Substitute c for v c= d/t Substitute t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) for t c=d/t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) Simplify c=(d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) Substitute d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) for d c=(d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) Simplify c=(d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) Simplify further c=(d/t)*(1-(v*v/c*c))For these purposes, judged from frame K the expression (d/t)*(1-(v*v/c*c)) represents the speed of the light pulse thus the speed of light in the light clock that is in the direction of motion in frame K’.

SUMMARY: Judged by an observer in frame K with frame K’ in motion relative to frame K at a relative speed greater than zero and less than c the speed of light in each of the three light clocks is unique.

Judged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock in inertial frame K: c= d/tJudged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock perpendicular to the direction of motion in inertial frame K’: c=(d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))Judged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock in the direction of motion in inertial frame K’: c=(d/t)*(1-(v*v/c*c))

The speed of light in the three light clocks is not constant and the same judged by an observer in frame K.

CONCLUSION:This mathematical analysis of an ordinary, unremarkable circumstance proves that time dilation and length contraction as presented in SR contradict a fundamental assumption of SR that the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers.

I don't think anyone's going to be able to find the time to try to understand all that. Perhaps some diagrams would help make it more intelligible. There's a tool for drawing them here which can be accessed by clicking on "Create a new diagram", just under the box where you type your message in (assuming you aren't using the "Quick reply" one).

This explanation by example should make the concept easier to understand. The math is basic.

The contention uses only the principles as set forth in The Theory of Special Relativity (SR) and the speed formula, v=d/t. It proves mathematically that length contraction and time dilation as set forth by SR contradict the fundamental assumption of SR that the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers. Judged from within the frame of the observer the speed of light is 300,000 km/s. The same observer judges the speed of light perpendicular to the direction of motion to be 150,000 km/s and the speed of light in the direction of motion to be 75,000 km/s in an inertial frame in relative motion at the at the speed .866c.

FOR THESE PURPOSES: A light clock is an imaginary construction that consists of two reflectors with a light pulse continuously reflected from one reflector to the other. Judged from within the inertial frame it occupies the length of a light clock is its proper length. For a light clock judged as its proper length, the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is 300,000 km. For a light clock judged as its proper length contracted by the length contraction factor, the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is judged as 300,000 km contracted by that same factor. There are 2 identical circular clocks and 3 identical light clocks. The light pulse in each light clock completes 1 round trip in the time it takes for the pointer in the circular clock in that same frame to complete 1 revolution. Judged from within the inertial frame it occupies the pointer in a circular clock completes 1 revolution in 1 second. 1 circular clock and 1 light clock are in frame K with the observer. 1 circular clock and 2 light clocks are in frame K’. Inertial frame K’ is in motion relative to inertial frame K at the speed .866c.

THE LIGHT CLOCK IN FRAME K:Judged by the observer in frame K the length of the light clock is its proper length. Then judged by the observer in frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is 300,000 km. Judged by the observer in frame K the amount of time for that light pulse to complete 1 round trip and the time for the pointer in the circular clock to complete 1 revolution is identical, 1 second. The speed formula v=d/t Judged by the observer in frame K d= 300,000 km - the round trip distance for the light pulse t= s - 1 second v= c the speed of the light pulse Substitute 300,000 km for d, s for t, c for v c=300,000 km/sJudged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock in frame K is 300,000 km/s.

Inertial frame K is at relative rest, inertial frame K’ is in relative motion at .866c. Per SR relative to time in frame K time in frame K’ is dilated/slower. Per SR for the relative speed .866c the time dilation factor is 2. Per SR judged by the observer in frame K length perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K’ is the proper length. Per SR judged by the observer in frame K length in the direction of motion in frame K’ is the proper length factored by the length contraction factor. Per SR for the relative speed .866c the length contraction factor is .5.

FOR BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K’:The light pulse in each of the light clocks in K’ complete 1 round trip and the pointer in the circular clock in K’ completes 1 revolution in the same amount of time. As the time dilation factor is 2, judged by the observer in frame K the pointer in the circular clock in K’ completes 1 revolution and the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes 2 revolutions in the same amount of time. Then judged by the observer in frame K the light pulse in each of the light clocks in K’ complete 1 round trip and the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes 2 revolutions in the same amount of time. Judged by the observer in frame K the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes 1 revolution in 1 second. Then judged by the observer in frame K the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes 2 revolutions in 2 seconds. Then judged by the observer in frame K the light pulse in each of the light clocks in K’ complete 1 round trip in 2 seconds.

THE LIGHT CLOCK PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF MOTION IN FRAME K’:Judged by the observer in frame K the length of the light clock that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K’ is the proper length. Then judged by the observer in frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is 300,000 km. Stated in “FOR BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K’ ”, judged by the observer in frame K the light pulse in each of the light clocks in K’ complete 1 round trip in 2 seconds.

The speed formula v=d/t Judged by the observer in frame K d= 300,000 km - the round trip distance for the light pulse t= 2s - two seconds v= c the speed of the light pulse Substitute 300,000 km for d, 2s for t, c for v c=300,000 km/2s Simplify c=150,000 km/sJudged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K’ is 150,000 km/s.

THE LIGHT CLOCK IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION IN FRAME K’:Judged by the observer in frame K the length of the light clock that is in the direction of motion in frame K’ is the proper length factored by the length contraction factor .5. Then judged by the observer in frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is 300,000 km factored by .5. Stated in “FOR BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K’ ”, judged by the observer in frame K the light pulse in each of the light clocks in K’ complete 1 round trip in 2 seconds.

The speed formula v=d/t Judged by the observer in frame K d= .5*300,000 km the round trip distance for the light pulse factored by .5 t= 2s - two seconds v= c the speed of the light pulse Substitute .5*300,000 km for d, 2s for t, c for v c=.5*300,000 km/2s Simplify c=150,000 km/2s Simplify further c=75,000 km/sJudged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock in the direction of motion in frame K’ is 75,000 km/s.

Judged by one observer a light pulse, therefore, light has 3 distinct speeds.Everything here is judged by one observer in the inertial frame that is at relative rest.

WITHIN THE FRAME OF THE OBSERVER: Orientation of light path – does not apply Length – proper length Time – proper time Length of the light path – the proper length, 299,792,548 meters (300,000 km) Time for the light pulse to traverse the light path – 1 second proper time Speed of the light pulse in the light path – 300,000 km/1 second 300,000 km/s – the proper speed of light judged by the observer

Sorry, but I just can't do it any more. It's still all presented in a form that I simply can't get my mind to work with. I'm sure your argument could be presented in a form where the central part of it comes up front and where it's described clearly to avoid unnecessary confusion, but as it stands it's asking the reader to do ten times as much work as should be necessary. Experience also tells me that what you have above is likely to be nothing more than a more convoluted version of your earlier attempts to prove something where it didn't appear to work and you didn't appear to be able to see that it didn't work (or maybe where it did work and I just couldn't see it, in which case I'm not up to the task anyway), so I simply can't motivate myself to work with the new version unless it's presented enormously better than any of the past versions (which were always far too hard to follow comfortably). It's just got to the point where I can't get my mind to work on it any more, and it's beginning to turn into a mental block now which means that even if you do manage to present it properly I'm going to have a hard time getting up the energy to attempt to work with it, but it would at least make it more likely that someone else would give it a go. [I still think diagrams would help.]

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY (SR):Judged by an observer at relative rest the speed of a light pulse (the speed of light) in a light path in the OBSERVER’S FRAME is defined as the proper length of the light path (its length in the observer’s frame) divided by the proper time (time in the observer’s frame): - proper length/proper time

Judged by that same observer at relative rest, when a light path in a FRAME IN MOTION relative to that observer is PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF MOTION the speed of the light pulse is defined as the proper length of the light path divided by the product of the proper time multiplied by the time dilation factor: - proper length/proper time * time dilation factor

Again, judged by that same observer at relative rest, when that light path in that same FRAME IN MOTION is IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION, the speed of the light pulse is defined as the proper length of the light path multiplied by the length contraction factor divided by the product of the proper time multiplied by the time dilation factor: - proper length * length contraction factor/proper time * time dilation factor

Then in accordance with SR, for that one observer light has 3 distinct speeds. - proper length/proper time - proper length/proper time * time dilation factor - proper length * length contraction factor/proper time * time dilation factorHOWEVER, according to SR the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers.

Frames K and K' have their origins O and O' coincident at time t=t'=0. Let x be the direction of motion of K' with respect to K the speed being v. A ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the vertical direction y with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K' frame. We have C = d'/t', where d' is the distance traveled in the time t'. The distance d' could be represented by a vertical rod of length d' = O'A'.

Another ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the vertical direction y with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame. We have C = d/t, where d is the distance traveled in the time t. The distance d could be represented by a vertical rod of length d = OA.

The vertical distances traveled, d and d', are equal in both K and K'. Since C = d'/t' then t’=d’/C. Since C = d/t then t=d/C. Since d=d’ then t’=d/C and t=d/C therefore, t’=t.

This is an unpolished version of the quantitative mathematical description of the contention. A significant modification was made.

Frames K and K' have their origins O and O' coincident at time t=t'=0. Let x be the direction of motion of K' with respect to K the speed being v. A ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the vertical direction y with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame. We have C = d/t, where d is the distance traveled in the time t. The distance d could be represented by a vertical rod of length d = OA. Then, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame C = d/t=C

Another ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the vertical direction y with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K' frame. We have C = d'/t', where d' is the distance traveled in the time t'. The distance d' could be represented by a vertical rod of length d' = O'A'. When d’ is in the vertical direction y, d’=d. (Per SR, time in K’ is dilated relative to time in K.) So, t’=(t)(square root[1-(v²/C²)]). Then, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame C = d'/t' = d/(t)(square root[1-(v²/C²)]) =C

An additional ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the horizontal direction x with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K' frame. We have C = d'/t', where d' is the distance traveled in the time t'. The distance d' could be represented by a horizontal rod of length d'. When d’ is in the horizontal direction x, d’=(d)(square root[1-(v²/C²)]). Time, t’=(t)(square root[1-(v²/C²)]). Then, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame C = d'/t' = (d)(square root[1-(v²/C²)])/(t)(square root[1-(v²/C²)]) = d/t=C

As seen by an observer at rest in the K frame the speed of light is not constant:C = d/t within frame KC = d/(t)(square root[1-(v²/C²)]) in the vertical direction y in frame K’C = d/t in the horizontal direction x in frame K’

The equation L’=(L)square root(1-v²/C²) is sited as the equation from which the length contraction factor was obtained. The length contraction factor is: square root(1-v²/C²). The length contraction factor does not apply to length perpendicular to the direction of motion.

How is L’=(L)square root(1-v²/C²) mathematically obtained? How is its directionality mathematically justified? If either of these questions has no mathematically valid answer the length contraction factor, and therefore, length contraction are not scientifically valid. The most ardent supporters of SR would be forced to abandon it in that case.

Pursuant to SR, for measuring rods of identical proper length that are perpendicular to the direction of motion, length is the same in all frames and the same for all observers. Pursuant to SR, the speed of light is equal in all frames and the same for all observers. Then, pursuant to the laws of physics, the time for light to propagate the length of measuring rods of identical proper length that are perpendicular to the direction of motion is the same in all frames and the same for all observers. Therefore, in accordance with the laws of physics, time is the same in all frames and the same for all observers.

Inertial frame K’ is in motion relative to frame K at a speed >0<C. Within frame K’ as seen by the observer in K’ light propagates length perpendicular to the direction of motion, d’, at speed C in the time t’. Within frame K as seen by the observer in K light propagates length perpendicular to the direction of motion, d, at speed C in the time t. Per SR, d’=d.

The formula t’ = (t)square root(1- v²/ C²) and everything derived from it are invalid. The formula is dependent on t’<t. It is now proved t’=t. Therefore: t=t’/square root(1-v²/C²)--- Time Dilation – is invalid L’(x)=L(x)square root(1-v²/C²)---Length Contraction – is invalid 1/square root(1-v²/C²)--- gamma – is invalid

To save my having to wade through the maths without a diagram, let's cut to the chase. What experimental result does your theory predict? How is this different from a conventional SR prediction? What was the actual result of the experiment?

LENGTH CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION CONTRADICT THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT - MMXIIIByThorntone E. “Butch” MurrayHouston, Texas, USA June 4, 2013

CONTENTION:This contention is in strict adherence to and based exclusively on principles presented in the 1905 Theory of Special Relativity (SR) by Albert Einstein. The following mathematical analysis of an ordinary, unremarkable circumstance proves that time dilation and length contraction as presented in SR contradict a fundamental assumption of SR that the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers.

There are very good reasons for physicists such as myself are not willing to spend hours trying to sort out confusing explanations such as this and that's that we've not only done this many times in all our careers many other people try the same thing and in each time it always comes down to one of two things

(1) The author is invariably using alternate definitions of things everyone else is with whom Einstein and his successors used, and that's those based on common sense and

As such please go back and show us exactly where in Einstein's article he made an error. Please also prove to us that you understand that Einstein knew that in order for the speed of light to be invariant that both space must be contracted and time be dilated.

Alancalverd,Since this relates to the mathematical foundation of SR, the first paragraph of my last post is very probably as clear as it can get without maths. Sorry.

Pmb,On your web page concerning light clocks you state, in effect, L is the same in both frames S and S’. Although true, technically L=Ct/2 in frame S and L’=Ct’/2 in frame S’ and L=L’. As such, in your Eq2 and Eq3 equations, Ct/2 can substitute for Ct’/2. Then:

Equation Eq3 is invalid for values of speed, v, greater than zero. Therefore, equations, factors, formulas etc resulting from or based on this invalid equation are also invalid. That is inclusive of but not limited to the time dilation factor, the length contraction factor and gamma.

Alancalverd,Since this relates to the mathematical foundation of SR, the first paragraph of my last post is very probably as clear as it can get without maths. Sorry.

No need to apologise, but my question remains: what experimental result does your theory predict? What actually happens when you do the experiment? I'm competely unapologetic about being an experimental physicist.

I’ve switched to c for the speed of light and not “C” since the lowercase c is standard notation in relativity. You’ve mislabeled the time parameter in both frames. In S the time parameter is tau (the proper time read on the clock) and in S’ the time parameter is t.

For these purposes inertial frame K’ is in motion relative to frame K at a speed >0<C. In K’ time is t’, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is proper length L’ and distance is d’. In K time is proper time t, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is proper length L and distance is proper distance d. You must agree that as long as what is meant is understood, squabbling over terminology is nothing more than a distraction from real issues and a waste of time.

Quote

Your confusion with the symbols led you to your erroneous conclusion.

Please show the instance(s) where confusion with the symbols led to an erroneous conclusion or state clearly this is your opinion.

Quote

These errors led you a succession of errors in the rest of your “derivation” which was wrong in the end.

Again, please present the succession of errors or state this is also your opinion.

Quote

You should have known that tens of thousands of physicists doing this derivation over every single day for a hundred years

Please cite at least one credible reference for this.

Quote

tens of thousands of physicists doing this derivation over every single day for a hundred years would have picked u[ an error long before now if one actually existed

What is the time limit to “pick up” an error? If not “picked up” before that time limit does an error cease to be correctable?

Quote

experimental errors would have been found a long time ago too.

What is the time limit for this?

Please, let us confine discussions to facts that can be referenced and label opinions as such.

alancalverd,

Quote

what experimental result does your theory predict? What actually happens when you do the experiment?

This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.

It should have been written, “True, however, technically…”[/quote]It’s not technically difficult at all. It’s quite easy to demonstrate this in any laboratory moving at very small speeds (e.g. 1 cm/s) which is consistent with Lorentz contraction and that’s simply the derivation to show that wires which are neutral in one frame are not neutral in another frame. This can be found in the Feynman Lectures – V-II[1] and in A.P. French’s Special Relativity.

Quote from: pmb

Quote

I’ve switched to c for the speed of light and not “C” since the lowercase c is standard notation in relativity. You’ve mislabeled the time parameter in both frames. In S the time parameter is tau (the proper time read on the clock) and in S’ the time parameter is t.

Quote from: butchmurray

You must agree that as long as what is meant is understood, squabbling over terminology is nothing more than a distraction from real issues and a waste of time.

No. I do not agree. For some reason you feel the need to have switched from the notation that I chose to use for the derivation for another convention, perhaps one that you prefer because you’re used to it. When made the change you also made errors that went along with it. When I pointed out to you what your error was, you then thought that the right approach was to get me to switch back to your notation again, that one that you used in the derivation where you made an error.

Quote from: pmb

Your confusion with the symbols led you to your erroneous conclusion.

Your erroneous conclusion is that there is no length contraction, which has been demonstrated by experiment to be correct.

Quote from: butchmurray

Please show the instance(s) where confusion with the symbols led to an erroneous conclusion or state clearly this is your opinion.

In this case your change in notation led you to make an error in the conversation that led to your mistake.

The experiments constant with Lorentz contraction can easily be found all over the internet in journal articles and by looking at the literature that particle accelerator labs provide. I don’t do anybody’s work when they can do if for themselves.

This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.

Your attempt does predict that the results of relativity are wrong.

First off there’s no need to make more changes, i.e. S to K, just to keep the coordinates started with on the web page so I’m using S and S’.

T is time as measured in the frame S’t is the time as measured in the frame S

The mixing of primes is unfortunate and should be avoided. But its more confusing to mist primes with frames in this case and one of them has to be changed since you felt the need to change coordinates in the first place.

From the diagram we can see that the Pythagorean theorem gives us

(ct/2)^2 = (vt/2)^2 + L^2

T is defined so that L = cT/2. Therefore

(ct/2)^2 = (vt/2)^2 + (cT/2)^2

Solve for t to obtain

t = T/sqrt[1 – (v/c)^2]

Therefore time is dilated.

Your argument on Lorentz contraction was based on that. Therefore that derivation is wrong.

This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.

Your attempt does predict that the results of relativity are wrong.

First off there’s no need to make more changes, i.e. S to K, just to keep the coordinates started with on the web page so I’m using S and S’.

T is time as measured in the frame S’t is the time as measured in the frame S

The mixing of primes is unfortunate and should be avoided. But its more confusing to mist primes with frames in this case and one of them has to be changed since you felt the need to change coordinates in the first place.

From the diagram we can see that the Pythagorean theorem gives us

(ct/2)^2 = (vt/2)^2 + L^2

T is defined so that L = cT/2. Therefore

(ct/2)^2 = (vt/2)^2 + (cT/2)^2

Solve for t to obtain

t = T/sqrt[1 – (v/c)^2]

Therefore time is dilated.

Your argument on Lorentz contraction was based on that. Therefore that derivation is wrong.

There are plenty of discussions about the experimental results which prove that time dilation and spatial contraction is true. One only need look.

This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.

And there we have a problem. Experimentally we find that the predictions of einsteinian relativity are correct, so any mathematical derivation that shows otherwise, is wrong.

No need to go into the maths at all. As in all other aspects of science, from fundamental particle physics, through chemistry and mesoscopic engineering, and right up to astronomy, if it doesn't predict what actually happens, it is wrong, and it is up to the person who derived the "proof" to find out why because the rest of us have more profitable work to do.

As you learned, there never was such an error as you originally thought that there was.

To assume that there was an error which has been around for a century which has gone unnoticed is unwise to say the least. To think that it was the other thousands and thousands of people who made a mistake and not you is an error in itself. I not of not one instance that such a thing has ever happened mathematically, at least not at this level of math and application. I'm applying Occamz razor here, of course.

Did you really believe that you could slip that by as a clever response and that we dim-wits wouldn't know how to answer this kind of questions?

Answer - A scientist wouldn't need to ask and a non-scientist wouldn't understand the answer. The availability of the precision required was available at the time the experiment done and the paper published. So the limit is before the time available that the experimental evidence was available and considered for this experiment.

I understand what he is saying. It is that for a length of rod L, if it is contracted to the external observer then the distance that light is seen to travel in that frame, from an external frame, is also contracted. Therefore light does not appear to travel as far in the same amount of time relative to the two frames. What he fails to appreciate is the differing temporal spaces occupied.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.